United States v. Kasey Konzem

                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 20-1725
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                              Kasey Charles Konzem

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: October 5, 2020
                              Filed: October 8, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Kasey Konzem appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel
has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the district court’s1 denial of a mitigating-role reduction and the
substantive reasonableness of Konzem’s sentence. Konzem has filed a motion to
proceed pro se in this court and has submitted a pro se brief challenging the
voluntariness of his plea and the factual basis for his plea. He also asserts that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel.

       After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
declining to apply a mitigating-role reduction. See United States v. Hunt, 

840 F.3d 554

, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Konzem, as the record indicates that the
district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States
v. Salazar-Aleman, 

741 F.3d 878

, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that under a
substantive-reasonableness review, the district court abuses its discretion if it “fails
to consider a relevant factor,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor,” or “commits a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors).

       As to Konzem’s pro se arguments, we conclude that his statements at the plea
hearing establish that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement
and that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. See Nguyen v. United
States, 

114 F.3d 699

, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he defendant’s representations during
the plea-taking carry a strong presumption of verity.”); see also United States v.
Cheney, 

571 F.3d 764

, 769 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that the record must contain
sufficient evidence at the time of the plea upon which the court may reasonably
determine that the defendant likely committed the offense). We defer any
ineffective-assistance claims for collateral proceedings. See United States v.
McAdory, 

501 F.3d 868

, 872 (8th Cir. 2007). Further, having independently reviewed
the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues


      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

                                          -2-
for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion to
proceed pro se as moot, and affirm.
                      ______________________________




                                       -3-
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on NO-SCAM.com, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Kasey Konzem in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Kasey Konzem. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike No-Scam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Kasey Konzem is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against United States v. Kasey Konzem were submitted by NO-SCAM.com user(s) and have been published as-is. NO-SCAM.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and NO-SCAM.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on United States v. Kasey Konzem at any cost whatsoever.
>